Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 19, 2012 5:00am-5:30am PDT

5:00 am
access to those 50 units of bmr. we have been involved in this project for years and are 100% opposed to any reduction in the on-site affordable. this is an opportunity for us to demonstrate a commitment to all low-income communities in san francisco and not merely be seen as self-serving for the lgbt community. it is californians, it is prop 8, and part of our broader social movement. president fong: additional public comment? we will open up to commissioner questions. public comment is closed.
5:01 am
commissioner sugaya: yes, i do not know if staffas here to answer. -- staff is here to answer. i have something else, too. as far as the connection to haight street, i think we have to make sure that it is a proper kind of connection. there is a connection that goes into the community garden. that is an important connection. that can be designed and plant. the other one is through the building itself. we were given a description. we had a meeting with the design team on tuesday, it was described as a connection, but it seemed then that might be a little circuitous and not as direct as that could be. i think we need to think about that and perhaps include
5:02 am
something with respect to a condition, if it is true that the connection language only speaks to the other three streets. those are the first two questions i have. commissioner antonini: i have a few things. this is an excellent project. i am happy to see it move forward after it has been six years since the original. speaking a little bit to what is going on, we will find out more from staff about the affordable peace. -- piece. there were compromises that were made along the way anti think if they have to keep some flexibility in this -- along the way and i think they have to keep some flexibility in this. if nothing gets built, nobody gains. we have to allow staff that
5:03 am
flexibility. on the issue of parking, we have to take what is before us to be what is presented. that is the point -- .57 parking ratio. the dental school has their 51 parking spaces and it is up to them, we have to factor goes out of residential parking. we have the 10 car shares. it is fair to count the seniors among the parking ratio. there are many seniors who have cars. what the speaker spoke about the fact that this particular person was sleeping in his car. it allows independent and mobility and oftentimes, as you become a senior, i can see it
5:04 am
happening that their mobility becomes less and the only way they can get around as if they do of the vehicle. it is not that all the seniors will have cars, but a certain number of them will want to have cars. having them five blocks away is almost like not having them at all. it is a fair ratio, it makes sense that is my position. as far as the haight street entrance, that is very important. that has to be as large and as welcoming as possible to let people see there is an interior there and to be able to get there. the archway, wherever possible, if the archway is historic and cannot be enlarged, there may be a possibility -- if an opening
5:05 am
can be made immediately behind their said there is a visual corridor and they see the corridor before them and they can go through there to get to the interior rather than going in and having to circumnavigate the way to the other exit. that interior profile, you could move a door or window around without violating severely and make it welcoming to the public. there was also some mention of the driveway on buchanan being narrow. if it makes sense, if it is safe, if it does not compromise, if the with of that could be narrower, that makes sense. the other thing i saw, on the earlier iteration, while airpark would look like a larger grassy -- waller park would look like a
5:06 am
grassy area. it is important to have the community garden. you need an area whereon the grg on concrete. people want that kind of experience, and i think if you are spending most of your time in there, and your exterior spaces within the confines of the project, i certainly hope the landscape architect can design something like that. i see a constant change of elevation on waller, but i do not see a large area where there could be a sitting area with some grass where people could enjoy themselves. i would like to see the work into the plans. the only other thing i see is that some people said it looked holiday einn-ish.
5:07 am
i know it will be better when it is finished, but whatever we can do to make it richer in design, that would be great. >> i am also supportive of the project. i like seeing senior housing on site. i would be supportive of a condition to have a connection to the north, recognize the need to make that walkway as inviting and as obvious as possible. i wonder if staff are ready to answer questions about the 50 bmrs and also whether we can get an answer to whether they can be relocated. >> i guess the thinking was that by locking in 50 units, if
5:08 am
something happens in the future, and nobody in this room wants that to happen, but the future is the future, and it is slightly unknown. if they get locked in there is a possibility they will have to come back and negotiate all this theory good -- all this. by retaining the range of movement, it does allow some flexibility. the future is unknown. nobody wants this to happen. we all want the 50 units. we are working hard to make that happen, but things change, and i think and by retaining that range, it gives everybody a little bit of flexibility in case something changes. i cannot answer the question about changing them to an off site location.
5:09 am
>> my understanding is that we cannot tie --the developer has the option to do them off site. we cannot require them to do them on sight. it really is a case of planning did not come through. we are happy to stick with 50. it was a technical issue. i know the sponsor wants 50. the planning department wants stacy. it provides flexibility. but we are happy to keep 50 as a requirement. good >> i would be supportive of putting 50 in the motion. >> did we hear from the project sponsor or not? nab on the driveway -- may be on the driveway, the size of the curvb cut.
5:10 am
>> there was a letter dated monday confirming financing is in place for all fifth day. the checks have not been signed, but it is in place, so we are comfortable with a condition being 50 bmr units. if it comes apart, we are willing to come back and talk about it then. we are comfortable it is not going to fall apart, so we are willing to take that risk. it's seems quite secure, and we do not want to jeopardize it by having this uncertainty. >> you are ok with on site? >> right now it permits us to choose the on site option. we would have to come back to you to do it offside. the reason the driveway on buchanan seat is 20 feet is to reasons.
5:11 am
one is that is the one the parking will be utilizing. they will be coming once or twice a year. the second thing is that is a basement garage, so there is a fairly steep incline going to the driveway, so there is no visibility. unlike the driveway that does not have a steep slope, drivers will be familiar with it. it is not safe to narrow it less than 20 feet. is one in and one out. it is not a wider than that, but now it would not be good to widen it because of the people driving in and out of the garage. good >> i am supportive of specifying 50 p.m. mar -- 50 bmr
5:12 am
on site. i think we mentioned this about downtown office buildings and knowing there are downtown office spaces. i think it is critical. even waller park could look like a private park you're not supposed to enter, so designing them like that is inviting to people, and we are using the impact to pay for these improvements, so it should be for the broader community and making sure the broader community knows they are welcome and that it is designed that way. i would support language in the motion that allows the department and the developer to continue to work on those designs so that they read as public.
5:13 am
commissioner sugaya: in the discussions commissioner more and i had on tuesday we reached an understanding that said they realized because of the comments of the historic preservation commission about by building and are concerned about scale, there was still time to work on that particular aspect of the entire project, because their program is behind the others, so there is more time to concentrate some design effort on the building. i think we were thinking it was not necessarily the case said it had to be totally changed -- the case and had to be totally change but there could be further exploration on the
5:14 am
street and in its relationship to the existing historical structure, so we were not talking about reducing the units of approaching it from a design standpoint, and if there is ample time to do that, we felt it would be an understanding it would be continued design efforts on that particular building. everybody is in favor of this. perhaps i should try to cross the motion of approval with the following, and we understand the 50t bmr units to be on site. they can come back later with the request to change that. commissioner hill has mentioned entrances, and they should be looked at in terms of a design that indicates this is a
5:15 am
publicly accessible space and the people are welcome in that respect, that there be an emphasis on infighting and connection to the street. that would be through the woods hall building, and that would be in addition to the space between woods and the new building, whatever direction is, but we continue to work on the open house design, and people can and conditions -- can add conditions after that, but i would like to say if the garage entrance is as deep as the one that a exists -- is as steep as the one that exists, that is a nightmare to negotiate at some
5:16 am
-- negotiate sometimes. goo[laughter] >> is there a second? >> i will second that. back hopefully you are only seeing it visually, not being a resident who too quickly, and that might be a reason for concern with steep as of the grade -- with steepness of grade. they said they would come back if there were problems, because we were looking at the report, but it looks like it can be done, and we have plenty of projects that come back to us as obstacles come with unit account -- count and various changes. we do not want to wait another
5:17 am
six years. we want to get this done as soon as possible. i want to make sure they look at a landscape architecture to make sure there are welcoming areas, so there are areas for people to rise and not constantly have stairs going up and down and quiet areas for quiet contemplation and enjoying nature. good >> i am supportive of the motion that is on the floor now, and i think this is a great use of this space: and on and now this whole block, and i want to thank the project sponsor for working with all these groups, and it turns out we end up with seems, -- themes, and today we have a theme of cooperation, either the can of this club, which is a cooperative efforts
5:18 am
-- cannabis club, which is a cooperative effort. >> we need to make a motion of intent to approve. >> i want to clarify the second motion we are suggesting an intent to approve with a date for approving the final agreement. >> we will vote on them separately? >> the motion on the floor and now is for approval with conditions, and correct me if i am wrong, of about 50 -- but it is to be designed so it is obvious to the public it is a public space, that there is a
5:19 am
connection to haight street, that they continue to work on the design, and i am not sure if there is anything else they added. they would continue to work on the landscape design to add resting spaces, and she is, etc., throughout the complex. on that motion -- breasting spaces, -- resting spaces, benches, etc. throughout the complex. on that motion -- [calling votes] that is a unanimous vote. for 15b there needs to be a unanimous motion. bikes i make a motion which intent to approve. -- >> i make a motion with
5:20 am
intent to approve. >> second. >> i need to set a date. >> please set a date for final action. by september 20? september 20. >> ok, the motion on the floor and intent to approve the agreement with the final action to take place on september 20. good on that motion -- [calling votes] thank you, commissioners. that motion passed unanimously also. commissioners, you are now on item number 17 for geary
5:21 am
boulevard. put them right there. i will get them. thank you.
5:22 am
>> good afternoon or evening, members of the commission. the case before you is a staff- initiated case for discretionary review as well as a neighbor request for the property located at 4334 geary street. the proposal involves demolishing a structure and when composing and a new dental office. is still in development at an underutilized block.
5:23 am
it is helping to create the street along gary boulevard, and by not including a garage, and it protects the right of way. the staff found the rear of the building is overwhelming and cut costs from the open space. staff require the sponsor reduce the upper two floors by 22 feet. if i can direct your attention to the overhead. we have asked the upper two floors be cut back to theire. what this would do would help keep the connection between the makes use of building and the
5:24 am
open space. this requirement is based on an urban design guidelines found in the commerce and industry development of the general plan. the requirement is based on these provisions. new development should respect open corridors and not impede access of light or error or blocked use of the adjacent buildings. the height and bulk of new developments should be designed to maximize son access to nearby residential space, parks, plazas, and major corridors. goothis project is a demo on reconstruction, so we are seeking to improve the situation rather than keep it away it is. the existing building measures 22 and a half feet, while the proposed building measures 17 feet, so there is a five-foot difference.
5:25 am
the neighbors request is mainly concerned about the blocking of her property line windows and the impact it will have on her building light and air. this is not something we consider when we are doing an application. the project is matching for a depth of 3 feet. the project sponsor will take the project and modify it. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> dr requester. >> good evening, president, members of the commission. i am steve williams. i am representing the tenants of the building, which is directly adjacent and east of the site. it is a given fact this is an
5:26 am
exceptional and extraordinary case with the department having initiated discretionary review and asking to modify the project. we are joining in with the request but asking the commission to take additional steps to protect have the ability of these units next door. who -- to protect habitability of these units next door. when i first started, i noted they were completely inadequate. a far fall -- they fall far below those submitted. i have a copy that was actually mailed out to the public, if you want to take a look at it. the plans are substandard, not code compliant. the basic features of the project and the existing buildings are presented without any dimensions. good aside elevations -- side
5:27 am
elevations do not place windows or light wells in position, no existing site plan as well. when i brought these mistakes to the department's attention last week, the response was those items are not required. however, when the developers were notified of this, they completely change the plan, so if you look at the plant in your packet, you will see there is a comprehensive clouding on every single sheet, meaning changes were made. what was distributed to the public was not what was in front of a commission. i have never seen it where every page was clouded, and that is what you see in front of you, and this lack of detail, lack of mandate lead to mistakes. we have been told all along that
5:28 am
the neighbors building was going to match. however, the neighbors building is not 40 feet. all of the light studies provided are inaccurate. they are showing in matching what they are showing. the number one policy priority is to protect affordable housing. this is the highest priority possible. this is to preserve and enhance the existing stock, and this is some of the most important stock out there. this violates the proposeolicy. they completely ignore the fact there are 12 units next door. the full analysis makes no
5:29 am
mention of it. if they had not filed this, you would not know the units are next door. they failed to mention there are 12 elderly tenants living next door, most of them long term. in the community outreach, which was an agreement signed, that is attached to exhibit 5 to the developers brees. who plans they submitted did not come near to complying to what they agreed to. they just handed us a new offer, which looks like they are trying to move the project now to what was agreed upon, and without more time to look into that offer and without time to figure out the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on